POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

I'm fully on board with the work P4T has done on this...but have wondered....why would "the hijacker" fly so fast anyway?

Really a rhetorical question I guess, since there wasn't one on board...but if I was in the cockpit, flying a heavy and trying to hit a building, I sure as hell wouldn't be firewalling the thrust.

I mean, knocking off a few knots, you are still gonna make a dent in the building...

Hell, I have a hard time lining up the runway in a 172

Rick

Agreed.

Those who make excuse for the govt story claim these so-called "hijackers" had training and pilots certificates, yet don't understand the meaning of Max operating speeds?

Primary pilots are trained to never exceed red line in the aircraft they fly. They avoid it like the plague and are taught the aircraft may rip apart if exceeded. If there were truly "trained hijackers" on board with their primary goal of flying into buildings, they would stay under red line speeds as they have been taught the aircraft may fall apart at any speed exceeding redline. It is counter intuitive for a trained "hijacker" to exceed redline in order to achieve the primary objective as they would be thinking the aircraft may fall apart before getting to it's target.

In other words, the duhbunkers can't have their cake and eat it too.. .although they try.

In my opinion the speed was used as cover. The higher the speed the less chance you have of someone getting a really good picture or video of it. Low and fast like a guided missile. But much slower than the many fighter planes charged with protecting our country. "Funny" how none of them intercepted these planes, especially when their top speed is well over Mach 2 (over 1300 Knots, 1500 mph). Hell my old F-4s were rated at Mach 2.2 and were built in the 60's. Guess the new F-16's and F-15's werent up to the task.

The 767-200 is no fighter plane.

I guess we're all supposed to sit here and act like nothings wrong.

Theres one problem with that. Many of us swore anOath to protect this country and our constitution from all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. And history has proven that governments, without fail, become the the enemies of the people they promised to protect and serve.

911 is not just about US. Most of the world was deliberately lied to and hypnotized into the support of the neocon compellence doctrines, many countries sucked into neverending wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing), into the unprecendented hypocrisy and servility to certain ruthless elites. The ongoing grassroot research into the truth about 911 gives us hope, the people will ultimately learn the truth how deep the power is corrupted everywhere and will do something about - not just in US, but elsewhere too - because there are many analogies to 911, although maybe not so spectacular ones. So lets keep the good job. I think the people if they see at least some of the Americans doesn't want to let this criminals get away with it will realize they can do something about their own things too.

To keep it simple, let’s say there were just two components to the question -- could the official story be true, with respect to UA175? (1) Could the airplane fly at 510 knots at that low altitude? (2) Could an inexperienced pilot hit the target unaided?

Assume such things as, a vanilla 767-200 series aircraft did impact the tower, the radar data were correct, and NTSB did the math correctly.

One component in the probability is whether the aircraft flew at the airspeed reported, call that P(A).

The other component in the probability is whether an inexperienced pilot successfully flew it into the tower, call that P(B). [This also could be called, probability that A is true, given B is true, or P(A|B), but I’m not going to use that notation]

The joint probability would be the product of these two, or P(A,B) = P(A) * P(B)

I would assign a probability to P(A) of something like 30%, or 0.3. That would be an airspeed improbability.

I would assign a probability to P(B) of something like 10%, or 0.1.

Both these would have a descriptor “improbable,” even though one is quite a bit more improbable than the other.

The joint probability would be .3 * .1 = .03 (3%). I would call that an aeronautical improbability.

Even 3% has the descriptor “improbable,” even though it probably should be called “very improbable.” I'm reserving the "impossible" word for 0% probability.

To keep it simple, let’s say there were just two components to the question -- could the official story be true, with respect to UA175? (1) Could the airplane fly at 510 knots at that low altitude? (2) Could an inexperienced pilot hit the target unaided?

Assume such things as, a vanilla 767-200 series aircraft did impact the tower, the radar data were correct, and NTSB did the math correctly.

One component in the probability is whether the aircraft flew at the airspeed reported, call that P(A).

The other component in the probability is whether an inexperienced pilot successfully flew it into the tower, call that P(B). [This also could be called, probability that A is true, given B is true, or P(A|B), but I’m not going to use that notation]

The joint probability would be the product of these two, or P(A,B) = P(A) * P(B)

I would assign a probability to P(A) of something like 30%, or 0.3. That would be an airspeed improbability.

I would assign a probability to P(B) of something like 10%, or 0.1.

Both these would have a descriptor “improbable,” even though one is quite a bit more improbable than the other.

The joint probability would be .3 * .1 = .03 (3%). I would call that an aeronautical improbability.

Even 3% has the descriptor “improbable,” even though it probably should be called “very improbable.” I'm reserving the "impossible" word for 0% probability.

Then there is the mathmatical probabillity against no tangible fighter response, no one was found to be blamed or reprimanded, instead all were promoted, destroyed flight controller tapes, three differing official stories from USAF, NORAD, FAA, confusion over Flight recorders being found or not, etc etc. Most every aspect of 9-11 is more improbable than probable regarding the official story. And if its all true, then our "leadership" is so screwed-up, we are facing something just as dangerous through stupidity, as any conspiracy or terrorist plot, and I would have to say that the Government put more into twisting the official account to cover asses and promote cold war stratedgies than give a truthful account to the public.

But then again, there couldn't have been any planes at all, because there weren't any vortexes......

In order to know what happened with those planes we can only look to recorded data. This includes the actual performance profiles for the planes which were allegedly involved. There are several places this information can or has been "tampered" with. And without several sources to corroborate the data there is little that can be done than point out things don't add up with the information supplied.

Is the performance described possible for some other air frames which look close enough to the 767 to "fool" eyewitnesses included what is on video footage? If so what planes / airframes might they be? And it was a 767 could it be modified to perform as described by the data?

Could this plane's performance be manually flown by a pilot of nominal skill? Presumably if this type of flight required test pilot experience this would rule out the pilots who were were told flew the plane(s). Can we rule out luck... ie an inexperienced pilot got lucky at the controls?

If the flight path was outside the skill set of manual control for the alleged pilots, could they have used some sort of homing device or autopilot to hit their coordinates. Is this something within the capability of those pilots on those planes?

Is it possible that the air frame was failing, as predicted, in the final moments of flight as it was pushed beyond it's flight profile but continued to strike the target? How long does it take for the plane to fall apart when it exceeds it flight profile? Was there enough time to still hit the target even though is was flying outside its profile?

Can the air speed be coaxed out of the videos of 175 hitting the south tower as a means to confirm or deny what the RADES data reported? Does that plane shown in the video look like it is moving at 510 knots? If trace data can determine the speed at least in the last second, why has this not been done?

If the RADAS data - digital is transmitted and / created isn't it possible that this data was inserted after the fact? Does the destroyed ATC tapes indicate that there may have been other data which shows something very different? What possible explanation could there be of destroying those tapes? Who actually did it and who directed this and who directed him and so forth? Do we know?

Since the building did not collapse from the plane strikes directly, what is the implication of the air speed? Are we to believe that the higher speed caused more penetration and damage to the core columns and that normal speeds would not have done this?

WTC 1 tipped away slightly from the side of the damage indicating that the plane strike may not have directly undermined the top section and caused it to descend. Like felling a tress the top should have tipped toward the wound. Even the south tower tipped to the South East and there was no direct destruction of the east facade by the plane strikes, though there is the suggestion that the SE section of the core was taken out by the plane fuselage and port engine.

Do we know that accurate and reliable remote control and/or homing in technology existed at the time? Even if these were commercial flights, was it possible that they were "electronically" taken over or flown like drones after take off and after some presumed hijacking.

If plane speed was not an issue, that is, in taking the towers down, why issue fall performance data in the first place?

Why are not more eyewitnesses coming forward in one of the most densely populated areas of the world - lower Manhattan to an event which occurred with on a day with unlimited visibility at rush hour when there are 5 (?) traffic helicopters in the sky?

Why is there not more outrage about all the plane anomalies on that day as reported in the OCT?

1. We have the BTS data which show the plane N612UA was consistently and without any unaccounted for flight flying on UAL lines up until 9/07 late evening (here my BTS records compilation); then the plane disappears from the record and reappears on 9/10 at JFK flying to SFO at 9:40 wheels off. It is important to note there is NO BTS arrival record to JFK since 9/07 late evening of ANY unacounted for UAL plane whatsoever. So the plane disappeared from schedules in BOS for 2+ days and reappeared at JFK without any record af any unacounted UAL plane landing there or N612UA anywhere else on normal line throughout BTS database - which is rather very suspicious, because other "BTS disappearance periods" one could at certain point find for all the 9/11 planes.

2. There is the record in BTS database wheels off time for N612UA flight 0175 BOS-LAX at 8:23 - , corroborated by the witness Steven Miller an US Airways pilot link EDIT: There actually were acording to 84RADES two planes taking off from BOS around 8:23 - one to Toronto code 3440 landing there at about 9:36; and other with code 1451 flying then to White Plains NY (HPN) landing there at about 9:01 - there is no arrival record of any plane of any airways landing at HPN around 9:01 on 9/11 in BTS.

3. We have the 9/11 Omission report which insists the wheels off time 8:14 - which is partially supported by 84Rades data - not fully, because there actually the radar record begins at 8:16:03,985 in the middle of the Boston Bay at the height 9200 which would suggest average climb rate 70+ feet/sec = 4200+ feet/minute! - EDIT: the Mode C altitude is 6200 - which would mean the climb rate 3000+ ft/min and there I've just found this mysterious 2 objects in one sweep of one radar (one of them being "UA175":

4. Then the 84RADES radar shows the plane makes weird maneuvers - see post here and further discussion - although we don't know if it is not just problem of being too far from the RIV radar... - but what is absolutely beyond my comprehension is the fact the NOR radar (which could corroborate the RIV record) which is much closer and sees all the planes taking off the BOS - didn't recorded the "UA175" takeoff, although it WAS in service during that period of time which can be easily proven* in the 84RADES rawdata - where it have seen other planes between 8:14-8:16.04 in the Boston area - so all the reports the NOR radar was offline during the period due to maintenance are patently false - and this fact alone is one of the direct proofs the 84RADES data were at least tampered with and it alone implies possible criminal investigation against John Farmer who allegedly obtained them on FOIA and subsequently diseminated them and/or against USAF and FBI respectively - as the purported origin of the data - for the federal felony under 18 USC 1001**.

5. and then the plane very quickly attains consistent OVER Vmo speed under 20000 feet - and one must note the plane does this while continuing the climb and long before the alleged hijack - dMole's chart here.

8. Plane squawks all the way to the WTC, unlike the other 9/11 planes, although changes the code twice at 8:47 never sending hijack code.

7. The flightpath from BOS to WTC2 is according to the 84RADES approx 385 miles which if were flown during the time of 8:14 - 9:02.59 = 49 minutes - would mean the average grondspeed of the plane was 400+ kt - including takeoff and the climb to the cruising altitude.

So they were quite in a hurry. The plane was at least 14 minutes late at the takeoff - 14 minutes in terms of possible intercept in the area of NJ-NY after the first plane crash to the WTC1 would - if all was normal - mean eternity.

*

**18 USC 1001 reads: "(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both."

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Jul 15 2010, 06:16 AM

5. and then the plane very quickly attains consistent OVER Vmo speed under 20000 feet - and one must note the plane does this while continuing the climb and long before the alleged hijack - dMole's chart here.

if i'm reading dMole's graph correctly, the plane is actually accelerating as it's climbing between 8:24 and 8:31 and like you said tume, over vmo the whole time.

the 'elephant in the room' got a mention over at cryptogon.com yesterday...

In order to know what happened with those planes we can only look to recorded data. This includes the actual performance profiles for the planes which were allegedly involved. There are several places this information can or has been "tampered" with. And without several sources to corroborate the data there is little that can be done than point out things don't add up with the information supplied.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ObwonWe have to, at some point in time, look at other parts of the story and see how these discrete findings mesh with the overall story. This is because, while certain things, takenby themselves, could be true, for the narrow situation being examined, we may find that there is no room for it, or it's consequences, to flow naturally into the entire concept of thestory.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Obwon

Is the performance described possible for some other air frames which look close enough to the 767 to "fool" eyewitnesses included what is on video footage? If so what planes / airframes might they be? And it was a 767 could it be modified to perform as described by the data?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ObwonHere is a question directed solely at the possibility of modification, that might have allowedthis instant possibility. But in the totally of the story, several questions emerge that make such theorizing impractical, to say the least.

Try to imagine the necessary situation: That two aircraft undergo very expensive preparations, that will enable them to fly faster than sound(?)or close to it, and stillmaintain their maneuverability.

What are the chances that two such "experimental" aircraft, will be deployed to carry regular airline passengers over the Boston to LA route on the same day, at the same airport, just a few gates apart, and with departures separated by just a few minutes? Most especially on a day of the week, where statistics show that one plane will not be profitable in these time slots, because there simply is no demand?

So that now you need a proactive reason for these "coincidental" events. There has to be a real and tangible explanation, as to why something not normally done, was actually done. That provided, in a timely fashion, to properly prepared aircraft, loaded with civilian passengers, to be delivered into the hands of the skyjackers who needed them.

Clearly pre-preparation is not the way to go, because it raises more, ever unlikely occurances than it explains. And that's without supposing that these planes underwent the weeks of testing required to certify the modifications. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Obwon

Could this plane's performance be manually flown by a pilot of nominal skill? Presumably if this type of flight required test pilot experience this would rule out the pilots who were were told flew the plane(s). Can we rule out luck... ie an inexperienced pilot got lucky at the controls?

If the flight path was outside the skill set of manual control for the alleged pilots, could they have used some sort of homing device or autopilot to hit their coordinates. Is this something within the capability of those pilots on those planes?

Is it possible that the air frame was failing, as predicted, in the final moments of flight as it was pushed beyond it's flight profile but continued to strike the target? How long does it take for the plane to fall apart when it exceeds it flight profile? Was there enough time to still hit the target even though is was flying outside its profile?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Obwon

Rob has answered that question before, I believe he said that the limits are THE LIMITS!Once they are exceeded the aircraft has failed. So, it is not a range or a "red zone" where anything might happen, it is in fact a "hard failure end point". If I understood him correctly.

Also, if I understood what has been said so far, by the experienced pilots here; The flight surfaces twist and contort and stall. Lose the needed laminar airflow, which takes quite a bit of time to recover. Time any pilot, human or computer, would not have, in a plane whose flight path must be adjusted in milliseconds. The plane can't be steered while it's flight surfaces are inoperative because they have lost their laminar airflow.

If that is so, and I've read right, then the only possibility for a computer control system, would have been to line the aircraft up with it's target, before there was any loss of control, so that momentum could carry it to target. But, since this was clearly not done, control was exerted throughout the excessive flight portions, then computer control could not be the case.Most especially because if it were to be, we're right back where we started with the early flight testing regime, that is highly unlikely to produce these aircraft on carrier routes for commercially operated passenger airlines, where they could be skyjacked as necessary.

Can the air speed be coaxed out of the videos of 175 hitting the south tower as a means to confirm or deny what the RADES data reported? Does that plane shown in the video look like it is moving at 510 knots? If trace data can determine the speed at least in the last second, why has this not been done?

I believe they said they got their speeds from frame counts. Where these are the only speedsthat produce the needed frame to frame displacements. These are the supposed "real time" videos of the events people claimed to have witnessed, at the very time it was beingrecorded. They are officially accepted as the critical evidence that we are told can berelied upon, in determining the truth of the matter. After all, the 9-11 Commission reliedon them in formulating it's conclusions.

If the RADAS data - digital is transmitted and / created isn't it possible that this data was inserted after the fact? Does the destroyed ATC tapes indicate that there may have been other data which shows something very different? What possible explanation could there be of destroying those tapes? Who actually did it and who directed this and who directed him and so forth? Do we know?

Since the building did not collapse from the plane strikes directly, what is the implication of the air speed? Are we to believe that the higher speed caused more penetration and damage to the core columns and that normal speeds would not have done this?

I would believe that the higher/highest speeds, would be needed to explain why theaircraft were completely absorbed by the buildings, without leaving stray peices outside, to be observed fluttering to the ground. But that alternatively, if the films were mereanimations, in the time allotted to create them, the speed of the planes was just toodifficult to control for. Remember, any video would have to be created using footageobtained contemporarily with the state of the area as it was at that time. So, footagewould have to be obtained with whatever was going on in the vicinity at that time, thenquickly edited and prepared for release, in the intervening 18 minutes. Because the secondstrike had to be shown live. A helicopter could have crashed into the towers for example or a cloud could have formed, and it wouldn't do for the "live" shots to have missed it.

WTC 1 tipped away slightly from the side of the damage indicating that the plane strike may not have directly undermined the top section and caused it to descend. Like felling a tress the top should have tipped toward the wound. Even the south tower tipped to the South East and there was no direct destruction of the east facade by the plane strikes, though there is the suggestion that the SE section of the core was taken out by the plane fuselage and port engine.

Do we know that accurate and reliable remote control and/or homing in technology existed at the time? Even if these were commercial flights, was it possible that they were "electronically" taken over or flown like drones after take off and after some presumed hijacking.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Obwon

Now that would be a pretty sight indeed, to have both the flight crew and the skyjackersfighting together to regain control of the plane. See what I mean about the "totality of events"? To assume that remote control was applied after the skyjackers took over, would be to make them unnecessary. They would no longer be in control of their destiny as it were.They'd be unwilling passengers trapped in the web themselves. Then why should they be on board at all? Just to remove the flight crew from the cockpit? What if they couldn't succeed?What then? The planes are on a tight schedule, if remote controls are to fly the planes, they have to be in irremediable control of the aircraft. If so, then there's no real role for the skyjackers, they're just five or six useless men along for the ride.

Worse yet, some skyjackers were "pilots" and some were "muscle", and the "muscle" did not know what the mission was, least of all that it was a suicide mission. So it'd be reasonable to assume they'd side with the flight crew, in trying to regain control of the plane. I couldn't think of a less predictable scenario.

If plane speed was not an issue, that is, in taking the towers down, why issue fall performance data in the first place?

Why are not more eyewitnesses coming forward in one of the most densely populated areas of the world - lower Manhattan to an event which occurred with on a day with unlimited visibility at rush hour when there are 5 (?) traffic helicopters in the sky?

Why is there not more outrage about all the plane anomalies on that day as reported in the OCT?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ObwonAs we saw in the background stories written about what happened that day, most people, who were eyewitnesses were confused and struggling to stabilize themselves, those who hada story to tell, were ignored by the media, who had quickly turned their focus to the more sensational parts of the story. Once the televisions began playing and replaying the videos of what happened, nobody who saw anything different, could really be sure of themselves. Least of all they wouldn't want to tell a conflicting story on their own, too great a chance they'd be held up to ridicule by people who had "seen it all themselves" even if only videos of it on television. Let's say if you had seen something different than two jets crashing into the buildings, would you want to argue with those people who will say they were watch in real time on tv? Who would have noticed a five, ten or twenty second delay?

The "waters" are further muddied by the endless replays. Even the people who believe they were watch "real time" events, taking place "live" on tv., would not know, to the second, what replay they actually saw. People who saw their first replay at 10am, would still later claim they were watching "real time live" tv.

"if i'm reading dMole's graph correctly, the plane is actually accelerating as it's climbing between 8:24 and 8:31 and like you said tume, over vmo the whole time."

To me from the chart it looks like the plane keeps altitude of 25000 ft 8:24-8:27 and then continues to climb until like 8:32 and getting to 34000ft. Actually from the Avg5 speed - the yellow dots (average for the period of five radar sweeps) it looks like the plane consistently exceeds the Vmo 360 kt already slightly before 8:19 - after just 5 minutes into the flight - at the altitude about 15000 ft and continues to climb until 8:24 with the little keeping of altitude for 3 minutes. Then after the plane climbs higher above 20000ft, we maybe cannot talk about Vmo exceeding anymore, because for higher altitudes there is Mmo 0.86 Mach, because the speed of sound is considerably lower at higher altitudes than at lower altitudes due to low temperature and air pressure - for example at 35000ft the speed of sound is almost 100 mph lower than at the sea level. Just for a hint the pressure at 35000ft is 3.7 times lower than at 1000 ft, the air density close to sea level is 2+ times higher than at the cruising altitude, so is the aerodynamic resistence of the air, so the plane faces much more aerodynamic stress at lower altitudes flying fast than at the cruising altitude, so therefore there is the Vmo limit -beyond the fate of the airframe integrity is uncertain, although I'm not sure if the plane would fully fall apart if flying 500+ kt at low altitude, because we have no test data and about the tunel tests. What I would be interested in is what will happen to a normal 767 pilot if he flyies with the plane over Vmo - would there be some checks of the TAS and any repercusions against such a pilot exceeding consistently Vmo by the airlines if they find out? Pilots, anybody?

To me it looks the consistent high speed of the aircraft right from the take-off - before the alleged skyjackers taken over the plane - right to the target looks like it wasn't a normal flight. Especially when I consider other circumstantial oddities as missing NOR data, missing BTS data for 9/07-9/10, conflicting take-off time, no record of the alleged hijackers at BOS, missing ATC tapes, no aircraft parts positive identification, missing FDR and CVR but passengers allegedly identified by DNA even some hijackers ID's, missing FAA radar data, failed intercept even the plane transponder still on and another plane just crashed into WTC 15+ minutes before...other planes oddities, no proper fully subpoenated and adequately funded investigation but names of the hijackers and bogeyman known next day even the OBL initially denied involvement and later not wanted for 9/11 by FBI, John O'Neill, Silverstein getting away with "two separate attacks" and "pull", conflicting accounts of president and the cabinet members, Afghanistan planned before 9/11, false Iraq pretexts, PNAC doctrine exactly answering cui bono...

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Jul 15 2010, 10:16 PM